Monnie pointed these out to me after she linked to them in a recent post.
Ricky Gervais (of The Office) acting serious in order to be funny: is definitely funny. but if you haven't watched the British version of The Office, you may not even find it humerous.
but David Hasselhoff legitimately attempting to make a cool music video in order to truly be cool: one of the funniest things I've ever seen ... and keep in mind while watching this that it's from 2002. This would be bad enough if it were produced in like 1982, but oh man... hillarious.
6.27.2006
6.22.2006
World Cup Fever
Before I start talking here I should let you know just how big of a soccer expert I am. My knowledge of the game was built completely during the US v. Czech opening game this year. Before that, I knew that they kicked a ball that is covered with an hexagon pattern (which ironically didn't even hold up to be true). Anyway, I asked many questions during the game and came out of it with what I'd call a solid understanding of the most basic rules and regulations. Not really any knowledge of strategy... not a whole lot of depth at all really. So with that disclaimer...
I watched the US v. Ghana World Cup game today. Over lunch I kept on the post game coverage as well - and to my amazement: none of the experts seem to have come up with why the US was not able to advance to the next round. This is pretty amazing given that this was the 3rd full soccer game I've ever seen and to me: it's completely obvious.
ESPNs first round of experts had two theories.
1. The refs blew the game for the US.
There was a call midway through the game resulting in Ghana being awarded a penalty kick. Ghana converted and made the score 2-1 - the US was never able to recover.
This is completely true. On the replay you can clearly see that a foul should not have been called. Had Ghana not scored, it's quite conceivable that the US would not have maintained their momentum and went on to win the game.
2. The coaching was terrible
US consistenly played in a formation that was not working for them. Instead of changing it up, they stuck with it and paid the price.
I can't really comment here. As I said earlier, I really know nothing of strategy.
ESPNs second round of experts had a different point.
The US lost because they had a very bad draw and were placed in a very tough group.
For those who don't know: the first round of World Cup, you play round-robin with three other countries. From what I gather: most experts would have ranked us the 4th best team in our group - maybe some would have said 3rd - maybe a couple 2nd - and maybe the coach's Mom would have said 1st.
It's hard to argue with this theory. If you aren't very good: yeah, you probably won't win.
ESPNs third round of experts had still another point to make.
In the first half of the game, the US captain had to leave the game due to injury. His replacement was fine but obviously was a step down from the starter.
This makes no sense. The guy that had to leave the game was 100% responsible for Ghana scoring their first goal. He basically handed off the ball to Ghana and said - go for it... I really don't think that replacing a guy that makes that play with any other pro-caliber player can be called a reason for losing. Maybe if they would have said: they didn't replace the guy soon enough I'd buy it!
Ok, drumroll please.
Now that the experts have spoken, let me tell you why the US really lost.
Perhaps I should have revealed this in my opening paragraph but I wanted to hold off. In truth, I am a championship-level soccer player myself. The fact is that I played an big part on a championship winning 10 year old soccer team. The year that we won the championship I played in one game (the first), didn't like it: and didn't come back. I'm sure the team was devistated to see such a talent leave them - especially since I think that meant that they had to play shorthanded. Something like 34 kids at a time against 35 (from what I remember we all were in there at the same time just running around kicking the ball).
Anyway, I learned two things about soccer during my one game career:
1. For some stupid reason you can't use your hands.
2. You have to kick it in the net if you want to win.
Let me slow down a bit since you aren't all experts like me. They put these big nets in each end and call them "goals". You have to kick it into this "goal" if you want to receive a point. Now, soccer is a notoriously low scoring affair. 1 goal could win you a game. 2 goals and you're looking good. 3 goals and you're all but assured a victory. 4 goals, I think they give you a barrel of Rum.
During the course of the US involvement in the 2006 World Cup let's see how many of their players scored a goal... 1. 1 guy scored. Wow! He must have scored a lot of goals... Nope, he scored 1 goal.
So... we are complaining about officiating, a poor draw, and injured players and we had 1 guy kick it into a net in 3 games? We might as well claim we lost because Mars and Jupiter were in the wrong places in their celestial orbits.
I watched the US v. Ghana World Cup game today. Over lunch I kept on the post game coverage as well - and to my amazement: none of the experts seem to have come up with why the US was not able to advance to the next round. This is pretty amazing given that this was the 3rd full soccer game I've ever seen and to me: it's completely obvious.
ESPNs first round of experts had two theories.
1. The refs blew the game for the US.
There was a call midway through the game resulting in Ghana being awarded a penalty kick. Ghana converted and made the score 2-1 - the US was never able to recover.
This is completely true. On the replay you can clearly see that a foul should not have been called. Had Ghana not scored, it's quite conceivable that the US would not have maintained their momentum and went on to win the game.
2. The coaching was terrible
US consistenly played in a formation that was not working for them. Instead of changing it up, they stuck with it and paid the price.
I can't really comment here. As I said earlier, I really know nothing of strategy.
ESPNs second round of experts had a different point.
The US lost because they had a very bad draw and were placed in a very tough group.
For those who don't know: the first round of World Cup, you play round-robin with three other countries. From what I gather: most experts would have ranked us the 4th best team in our group - maybe some would have said 3rd - maybe a couple 2nd - and maybe the coach's Mom would have said 1st.
It's hard to argue with this theory. If you aren't very good: yeah, you probably won't win.
ESPNs third round of experts had still another point to make.
In the first half of the game, the US captain had to leave the game due to injury. His replacement was fine but obviously was a step down from the starter.
This makes no sense. The guy that had to leave the game was 100% responsible for Ghana scoring their first goal. He basically handed off the ball to Ghana and said - go for it... I really don't think that replacing a guy that makes that play with any other pro-caliber player can be called a reason for losing. Maybe if they would have said: they didn't replace the guy soon enough I'd buy it!
Ok, drumroll please.
Now that the experts have spoken, let me tell you why the US really lost.
Perhaps I should have revealed this in my opening paragraph but I wanted to hold off. In truth, I am a championship-level soccer player myself. The fact is that I played an big part on a championship winning 10 year old soccer team. The year that we won the championship I played in one game (the first), didn't like it: and didn't come back. I'm sure the team was devistated to see such a talent leave them - especially since I think that meant that they had to play shorthanded. Something like 34 kids at a time against 35 (from what I remember we all were in there at the same time just running around kicking the ball).
Anyway, I learned two things about soccer during my one game career:
1. For some stupid reason you can't use your hands.
2. You have to kick it in the net if you want to win.
Let me slow down a bit since you aren't all experts like me. They put these big nets in each end and call them "goals". You have to kick it into this "goal" if you want to receive a point. Now, soccer is a notoriously low scoring affair. 1 goal could win you a game. 2 goals and you're looking good. 3 goals and you're all but assured a victory. 4 goals, I think they give you a barrel of Rum.
During the course of the US involvement in the 2006 World Cup let's see how many of their players scored a goal... 1. 1 guy scored. Wow! He must have scored a lot of goals... Nope, he scored 1 goal.
So... we are complaining about officiating, a poor draw, and injured players and we had 1 guy kick it into a net in 3 games? We might as well claim we lost because Mars and Jupiter were in the wrong places in their celestial orbits.
6.13.2006
Tourny Sunday
If you liked "Lazy Sunday" (from SNL) and you play ultimate... you need to see "Tourny Sunday".
And while you're at it... there are about a million Lazy Sunday paradies out there.
They're hit or miss... but that actually makes them better. Enjoy.
And while you're at it... there are about a million Lazy Sunday paradies out there.
They're hit or miss... but that actually makes them better. Enjoy.
6.02.2006
Mosaic
This was discussed on diggnation this week (which I'd also recommend.
This online mosaic application let's you drill down infinetly into more and more mosaics. Very cool.
Just click somewhere on the initial image and you'll zoom in - continue clicking and you'll zoom in more and more - each time finding that what was once a tiny portion of the original picture, is itself made up of other tiny pictures - and so on and so forth.
Give it a try, you'll like it.
This online mosaic application let's you drill down infinetly into more and more mosaics. Very cool.
Just click somewhere on the initial image and you'll zoom in - continue clicking and you'll zoom in more and more - each time finding that what was once a tiny portion of the original picture, is itself made up of other tiny pictures - and so on and so forth.
Give it a try, you'll like it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
